THE PATIENT'S ATTORNEY CLAIMS THAT THE PATIENT ((B)(6)) WAS TESTED AND FOUND TO BE (B)(6) FOR (B)(6) BASED ON THE USE OF A CELLESTIS QUANTIFERON (B)(4) TEST. THE ASSUMPTION IS THE TEST WAS PERFORMED ON A LOT OF (B)(4) TUBES WHICH WERE RECALLED BY THE FIRM (REF 3003964343-01/28/13-001-R). (B)(6) BEGAN TREATMENT WHICH INCLUDED A BATTERY OF PRESCRIPTIONS WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED SEVERE SIDE EFFECTS BUT ALSO INTERFERED WITH HER CURRENT PRESCRIPTIONS. (B)(6) WAS NOTIFIED OF THE RECALL (B)(6) 2012. IT IS NOT CLEAR IF (B)(6) WAS RETESTED. THE PATIENT'S ATTORNEY CLAIMS THAT (B)(6) SUFFERED SEVERE PHYSICAL AND MENTAL PAIN AND SUFFERING, INCONVENIENCE, EMBARRASSMENT, MEDICAL EXPENSES, LOSS OF INCOME AND LOSS OF SOCIETY.
N
Patient 1
AS A RESULT OF A CAPA INVESTIGATION, PAST LEGAL COMMUNICATION WAS FOUND THAT WAS IDENTIFIED AS REQUIRING A MEDWATCH REPORT. THE COMPANY HAS DECIDED TO SUBMIT THIS MDR FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES IN AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION AND TO ENSURE FULL COMPLIANCE WITH 21 CFR PART 803. BASED UPON THE INTENDED USE OF THE PRODUCT, IF A (B)(6) RESULT IS OBTAINED, THE PHYSICIAN IS ADVISED TO REPEAT THE TEST FOR CONFIRMATION, AND IN GENERAL THE RESULTS OF THE SCREENING TEST ARE TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WITH THE PATIENT'S EPIDEMIOLOGICAL HISTORY, CURRENT MEDICAL STATUS AND RESULTS OF OTHER DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATIONS. THE ALLEGED PROBLEMS REPORTED ARE THE OUTCOME OF DIAGNOSIS, AND SUBSEQUENT TREATMENT. CELLESTIS FILED NOTIFICATION OF THEIR VOLUNTARY RECALL THROUGH THE REGIONAL FDA DISTRICT RECALL OFFICE ON (B)(4) 2012. CLOSURE OF THE RECALL BY THE FDA WAS RECEIVED (B)(4) 2013